Lordpyromon Posted August 13, 2017 Report Share Posted August 13, 2017 Yes I basically just joined this forum and I'm already shamelessly advertising my YouTube channel but I genuinely want to know people's thoughts, I think I made a decent case in the video below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkWlc4zHmiA 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Make_Big_Boom Posted August 13, 2017 Report Share Posted August 13, 2017 A turd's a turd however you may look at it. The only good thing out of being a spinoff would be that Halo (no 5): Guardians wouldn't of derailed the mainline games because of not being a numbered title (if in this alternate timeline Halo games even get numbers anymore). If they still had the same writing team working on this hypothetical spinoff the story would still be as bad as OG 5's. Also, in this timeline Guardians would constantly be compared to Reach, and would be unanimously considered a worse game than Reach (like I already consider it) because of Guardians' lack of offline modes, split-screen, complex player customization, and up-to-par Campaign. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinreaper Posted August 14, 2017 Report Share Posted August 14, 2017 That is where we disagree. Reach is my 2nd favorite Halo game (campaign wise). Ranked order best to worst... Campaign: ODST>Reach>CE>H2>H3>H4>H5 Multiplayer: H3/H2>Reach>CE>H4>H5 The amount of sheer disdain I have for 343 and their creative ability goes far beyond anything I have ever had for a franchise developer in the past. However, SD would be correct, the writing team just plain sucks. A spin off would have been in the same pool as H5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now